5. No established QB. QBs learning the system in a division none but the injury prone McCoy has played in. A rookie with one year of starting experience, a journeyman, the aforementioned injury in waiting Colt.

6. No TE threat comparable to other teams with strong TEs. Reed is constantly injured and a weak blocker. No other TE threat a defense has to worry about.

7. RBs featuring one star at the tail end of his career, two coming off serious injury, a fourth who can't stay on the field.

8. A HC who is often outcoached and does not make credible half time adjustments.

Lotta ifs this season. Everything falls into place they could make it to the play-offs mostly due to a defensive line that is emerging as one of the better in the league - can it last a whole season by establiishing a rotation where the level of play doesn't fall off toward the end of the year? The offense is a huge question mark across almost every position.

As you know, I preferred waiting to next season to draft from a far better pool of QB options per the "experts". Not the plan. Ok. Then methodically develop what you have. If the decision is made to go into the season with Haskins, play him as often as possible during presesason so he can acclimate to NFL speed, NFL defenses, develop a leadership personna. But that means playing your other vets as well. All the risks go up. Going into the season without exposing the rookie to maximum playtime would be flat out crazy and self-defeating. It turns your frist several games into school time.

GM

I'm in the camp that starts Keenum on opening day barring some ridiculous combination of Keenum looking like John Beck, Haskins looking like Dan Marino, or both. To me no matter how good the rookie might look in camp and preseason, going against legit NFL defenses game-planned to force a pocket-passing rookie to make downfield plays is a very different animal, and just not a realistic option.

I think Keenum will provide just enough veteran craftiness and leadership to make our offense competitive early, while we figure out the basics for 2019--can we run the ball, is the WR corps capable of consistent contribution, can the defense pressure the QB in the 4th quarter, etc. If we start 3-2, even 2-3, and we're in games and looking like we might contend for a playoff spot (at least until half the starters get hurt in a 2-3 week span like seems to be the formula lately), you keep Haskins on the bench and let the team compete. It's still about winning, no matter who's behind center.

If and when it looks like the team isn't keeping pace in the division, then I'd favor getting Haskins on the field. Yes, even if Keenum isn't "the problem." We used a 1st rounder on a QB that may or may not be a "franchise" guy ... that carries weight. We'd like to see him under game conditions at some point in 2019, to have a bit better gauge on what we might see in 2020.

The UDFA

But I think the reason some of those QBs failed in the long haul probably had less to do with starting right away, and a lot more to do with their ultimate talent level and ability to just to NFL speed.

I lean this way as well. Jake Locker sat a year - he still flamed out. Mahommes sat - and balled out. Mayfield went through the charade of sitting a few games behind Tyrod, and played well. I think in the end, if you're good, you're good.

Hopefully, it is a true, fair, qb competition. If Case wins - go ahead. If Haskins wins, don't be "afraid" to start him just because media/fans say to "play it safe" and sit him for an arbitrary amount of time.

Lastly, o-line health may play a role. If it becomes a MASH unit again, before Haskins gets to start, would they thrown him behind backups?

GM

I think we vastly underestimate raw talent and football instincts, and greatly overestimate experience. It's true that the speed and complexity of the NFL game is at another level. But that isn't just true for rookies - there are a lot of backup and journeyman QBs who can't handle the speed and complexity of the NFL - which is why they are backups and journeymen

Gruden will have the best vantage point possible to determine who his starter is going to be. He's a former QB, has no history of worrying about what ownership thinks he should do when it comes to who plays and starts, and he has a lot of pressure on him to produce this year. His job *may* be at risk (although that's just conventional wisdom - we have no idea if it's actually true). I trust that whoever is our starter, it will be the QB who showed the most skill and capability in the run-up to the regular season.

Bottom line ... he's going to decide early on which guy he is going with and give him max reps. I hope they decide sooner rather than later. The planned starter needs max reps. And please, let's let the Colt McCoy experiment finally end. He's just not a starting NFL QB. I've seen enough.

I think it's a 50-50 proposition as we sit right now. Wouldn't be surprised if Gruden's plan has to been to go with Keenum, and then Rookie Minicamp happened and he saw the balls coming out of Haskins hands. Just remember - a lot of very good QBs started right out of the gate in their rookie year. I mentioned Carson Wentz as a recent example. I guarantee you the Eagles started out skeptical about whether he should start right away. But he convinced them otherwise.

If Haskins can do that, more power to him. If not, let's roll with Case who is a very savvy, capable game managing-type QB.

GM

If Haskins convinces Jay between now and opening day that he gives us the best chance to beat Philly, in Philly, it'll be because Jay feels the kid's talent and potential outweigh his inexperience and Keenum's limitations. Sitting here today, anyway, that just seems a less likely scenario to me than starting the guy who has shown he can play in the NFL. As of today I see a raw rookie, a tough schedule out of the gate, and a veteran who has shown he can win in the NFL.

Maybe I'll feel different if over the next months Haskins makes his, er ... Case ... and by opening day the decision to start The Kid is a no-brainer.

GM

I have no issue with going with Keenum if he's the better option in Gruden and company's estimation. If Haskins is able to beat out Keenum (which really shouldn't happen for all the reasons folks have highlighted) I think it would be a real indicator of how talented they think he is.

If it happens folks will spin it as a Snyder mandate or all about putting seats in butts. But it wouldn't necessarily mean that's what's going on anymore than him sitting would mean Haskins is flawed and a blown pick.

It's all just fun speculation. We're going to know sooner rather than later though as they'll have to get the presumed starter major reps. It's going to get decided by early TC imho.

The Commissioner

I understand that the RG3 situation with Gruden coming in and saying he doesn't want him starting gives credence to the idea that Gruden has more power than he does...but it's a totally different animal than the one we currently face w/ Haskins. With the 1st draft we've seen Snyder as hands on in a while as we saw to end up with Haskins, there is going to be a lot of pressure to get him on the field.

Griffin displayed his lack of talent to become an NFL QB, so it was easier to talk Snyder out of the need to have a marketable QB behind center.

Haskins is a clean slate, there is going to be a ton of pressure coming from the FO to get him on the field ASAP. Snyder needs to get his ticket sales, and jersey sales back to square. Why do you think they gave him #7 ? It's all marketing.

Some can discount that idea, but we have a long body of evidence that supports that notion.

GM

I think the #7 thing is a stretch. He's had the # his whole career, hardly the first time a QB wanted to keep a #.

The rest has a lot of merit. Gruden may have had more latitude then and the situations are different. But just because Dianne Effing Russini says Snyder made this pick and imposed it on Gruden doesn't make it so. In fact, her saying means it's probably not accurate.

The Legend

I think Keenum will provide just enough veteran craftiness and leadership to make our offense competitive early, while we figure out the basics for 2019--can we run the ball, is the WR corps capable of consistent contribution, can the defense pressure the QB in the 4th quarter, etc. If we start 3-2, even 2-3, and we're in games and looking like we might contend for a playoff spot .

That's another key. If Haskins starts right away, not only will he be figuring things out himself, but the rest of the offense too, which includes guys are young, inexperienced, new, have been hurt and rusty, etc.
So I think Keenum's experience is critical in providing a veteran lift, during that period which you described as the offense "still trying to figure things out". We don't need practically 11 guys still trying to figure things out at the same time. Let's remember, due to injuries last year, and additions this year, we just may be starting practically a completely different 11 guys on offense, on opening day this year, compared to the way the season ended.

GM

Where that goes off the rails for me is the flat assertion "it's all marketing." It discounts the notion that the team--and by that I mean from Snyder on down to the coaching staff--also wants to win games.

Unless we are to consider that marketing, too, as in ... hey, I know! ... let's do what's most likely to put a winning team on the field so people with disposable money will notice and be like "Hey, the're pretty good! Let's spend money on cool gear and stuff so we can identify with them--and more importantly of course be identified with them--in public as winners ourselves!"

GM

That's another key. If Haskins starts right away, not only will he be figuring things out himself, but the rest of the offense too, which includes guys are young, inexperienced, new, have been hurt and rusty, etc.
So I think Keenum's experience is critical in providing a veteran lift, during that period which you described as the offense "still trying to figure things out". We don't need practically 11 guys still trying to figure things out at the same time. Let's remember, due to injuries last year, and additions this year, we just may be starting practically a completely different 11 guys on offense, on opening day this year, compared to the way the season ended.

I like Keenum. If his experience is a big plus its going to manifest itself quickly in his ability to learn and run the offense. That's where it should give him a huge edge. Haskins hasn't even played under center for most of his career. But if Haskins quickly adapts, learns a new offense at the same pace/level as Keenum, and shows significantly better arm talent - it won't be crazy to put him to work right out the gate.

The Commissioner

Where that goes off the rails for me is the flat assertion "it's all marketing." It discounts the notion that the team--and by that I mean from Snyder on down to the coaching staff--also wants to win games.

Unless we are to consider that marketing, too, as in ... hey, I know! ... let's do what's most likely to put a winning team on the field so people with disposable money will notice and be like "Hey, the're pretty good! Let's spend money on cool gear and stuff so we can identify with them--and more importantly of course be identified with them--in public as winners ourselves!"

OK, "all" may have been a stretch, but the 20 year history of Snyder rule exhibits more emphasis on bottom line than winning. I think there is merit in that, and I believe you know that to be true. Or else, he'd focus more on winning and molding his team more like a winning franchise in the league and less like a booze hound in charge of things.

And Boone, as for Diane Russini, I have no idea what she said about the pick. While, the whole Theisman permission thing may not have been intentional, you better believe anyone in marketing can see the value of the 1st #7 going on sale in DC in almost 40 years is marketing gold! But it won't be pure gold unless the kid is starting.

GM

Russini put it out there authoritatively that â€˜Dan Snyder' would be running the draft and also made statements that the Redskins we're going to give up the farm to move up to the early first round to get a QB. That whole bullshit storyline came from her. She also intimated that Gruden wanted Jones, not Haskins - which I think is at best a guess, and not supported by what Gruden has said.

The Legend

Russini put it out there authoritatively that â€˜Dan Snyder' would be running the draft and also made statements that the Redskins we're going to give up the farm to move up to the early first round to get a QB. That whole bullshit storyline came from her. She also intimated that Gruden wanted Jones, not Haskins - which I think is at best a guess, and not supported by what Gruden has said.

The Commissioner

Russini put it out there authoritatively that â€˜Dan Snyder' would be running the draft and also made statements that the Redskins we're going to give up the farm to move up to the early first round to get a QB. That whole bullshit storyline came from her. She also intimated that Gruden wanted Jones, not Haskins - which I think is at best a guess, and not supported by what Gruden has said.

I cannot hear a word from her, I only look at her boo...er...umm...never mind.

In all seriousness, I remember her assertions now. I think there may have been validity on the trade up for Haskins v. the patient approach and take anyone if Haskins were not there. I just don't believe we were interested in Jones if Haskins wasn't available. I think the VaGiants screwed themselves. Jones would have been there at 17.

GM

I think Allen used her - fed (or had someone feed) her bad info knowing she'd run with it full bore. And I think getting the Giants to use that early pick on Jones was the result. I don't think it's the only misinformation put out there by some of the DC media.

The All-Time Great

Where that goes off the rails for me is the flat assertion "it's all marketing." It discounts the notion that the team--and by that I mean from Snyder on down to the coaching staff--also wants to win games.

Unless we are to consider that marketing, too, as in ... hey, I know! ... let's do what's most likely to put a winning team on the field so people with disposable money will notice and be like "Hey, the're pretty good! Let's spend money on cool gear and stuff so we can identify with them--and more importantly of course be identified with them--in public as winners ourselves!"

The All-Time Great

I lean this way as well. Jake Locker sat a year - he still flamed out. Mahommes sat - and balled out. Mayfield went through the charade of sitting a few games behind Tyrod, and played well. I think in the end, if you're good, you're good.

Hopefully, it is a true, fair, qb competition. If Case wins - go ahead. If Haskins wins, don't be "afraid" to start him just because media/fans say to "play it safe" and sit him for an arbitrary amount of time.

Lastly, o-line health may play a role. If it becomes a MASH unit again, before Haskins gets to start, would they thrown him behind backups?

I know this: if Haskins starts game one, loses, throws some picks, I'll be the first one in line boo'ing the living XXXX out of these clowns! Especially if I have the energy to sit through yet another one of Gruden's idiotic post-loss exercises in mea culpas.

You can't lose two division games, possibly three, right off the bat. In the end, I'd rather be blaming Keenum and caterwauling for his scalp rather than Haskins'. Let the kid settle in. Ease him in after the Pats game.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

About Us

Welcome to BGObsession, a Burgundy and Gold Obsession, Home of the most intelligent community of Washington Redskins fans on the web. BGO was created for Redskins fans who appreciate adult sensibilities like common sense, reason, and the fact that passion and civility need not be mutually exclusive. If that combination appeals to you, we cordially invite you to consider BGO as home to your burgundy and gold obsession.